ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2026
Clinical predictors of stimulant efficacy in adults with ADHD.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a disorder marked by inattentiveness and/or hyperactivity and increased impulsivity. A common treatment for ADHD is stimulant medications, with a formulation of methylphenidate or amphetamine. Although stimulant medication is effective in most patients, 40% show no response. There have been attempts to predict stimulant efficacy through neuroimaging and electroencephalograms; however, these methods are expensive and not sustainable in day-to-day clinical practices. Objectives: This study aimed to identify clinical factors that could be used to predict which patients would best respond to stimulants. Design: The reporting of this study conforms to the STROBE statement. This was a naturalistic prospective observational study. Methods: Thirty-six medication-naïve adults with ADHD were prescribed stimulant medication and naturalistically followed for an average of 116 days. Demographics, type of stimulant, and seven clinical rating scales were analyzed to identify response predictors. Truncated Poisson regressions, stepwise logistic regressions, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and Bonferroni corrections were performed. Results: Executive function impairment and better quality of life were found to be the best indicators for stimulant response. Higher scores on Adult Self-Report (ASR) Thought Problems, Withdrawn Problems, Internalizing Problems, and Intrusive Thoughts were indicative of lower stimulant efficacy. Poorer working memory and task monitoring also predicted lower stimulant response. Conclusion: These clinical measures could aid clinicians and patients in predicting who would better respond to stimulant medications and reduce the time that patients wait before finding an effective treatment. Executive functioning, quality of life, and ASR profile measurements can be used to best manage ADHD symptomology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.